Case law

United States v. Caseer

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 2005

Caseer Page 4 his actions; (2) that khat qualified as a food item not subject to regulation by the Controlled Substances Act; and (3) that the … Yet if the Act falls by reason of vagueness so far as due process of law is concerned, there would seem to be a similar lack of specificity when the privileges and immunities clause .

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Antonio L. Forrest, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

402 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2005

To establish an equal protection violation under Batson , “the claimant must first establish a pri-ma fade case of racial discrimination. … If the claimant establishes a prima facie case, the party exercising the peremptory must proffer a race-neutral explanation.

Reed Franklin v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.

919 F.2d 45 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 1990

Because the plaintiffs in this case continued to work at the Tiffin plant at the same salary they received as Data employees, they did not experience a period of unemployment and were therefore not qualified for severance … Data Documents clearly met its burden of supporting its motion for summary judgment by introducing evidence that its policy was to award severance pay only to employees who were terminated as part of a reorganization or as

Cone v. Bell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2004

Since Maynard was dictated by Godfrey, it contrary to clearly established U.S. … The Merits clearly established test from Strickland.

Judy Lynn Tahfs, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. William N. Proctor Miranda K. Proctor, Defendants-Appellees/cross-Appellants

316 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

The magistrate judge concluded that § 1988 fees and Rule 11 sanctions were “clearly warranted.” … In Dennis , the Supreme Court had before it a state appellate court ruling that clearly established that the state judge in question corruptly conspired with private actors and “illegally issued” an injunction prohibiting

General Tobacco & Grocery Co. v. Fleming

125 F.2d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 1942

books, records, documents and papers demanded by subpoena duceé tecum, upon allegation of the previous refusal of appellant to produce its books and records at a designated time and place in obedience to an order of a duly qualified … application of the petitioner, the answer of the respondent thereto, and after hearing argument of counsel on behalf of the parties and on all of the proceedings herein and it appearing that the jurisdiction of the court is established

United States v. Keeda Haynes

468 F.3d 422 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2006

The defendant having failed to establish any of the criteria required for reconsideration, her argument as to the propriety of the jury instructions is precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine. B. … The fifth prerequisite for this defendant to qualify for a safety valve reduction is that she must fully disclose to the Government all information she has “concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course

James W. Childs v. Margery B. Koosed, Richard L. Aynes, Isaac C. Hunt, William D. Rich, Frank Marini, and William v. Muse

928 F.2d 404 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 1991

928 F.2d 404 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service … The plaintiff did not clearly notify the defendants that they could be personally liable for those counts brought under federal law.

Lynne Donovan v. FirstCredit, Inc.

983 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2020

Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 499 (2009) (“[I]t is well established that the court has an independent obligation to assure that standing exists.”). … Fork Coal Corp., 691 F.3d at 740, this interpretation fails to establish ambiguity.

Pervis T. Payne v. Ricky Bell, Warden

418 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2005

established federal law. … That adjudication was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Frick v. United States

907 F.2d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1990

Section 1989 is a general enabling statute, empowering the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to implement CFRDA. … Even if plaintiff could make out a colorable Bivens claim, defendants would be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because they did not violate a "clearly established" law or "clearly established right," the contours

John B. v. Mark Emkes

710 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2013

The plaintiffs develop this argument only for paragraph 58, which requires that “utilization review and prior authorization decisions be made only by qualified personnel[.]” … The plaintiffs have not even argued, much less proved, that these findings were clearly erroneous.

Arthur Jackson Burton v. Jack Bergman

649 F.2d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 1981

However, we find it significant that the language of the opinion so clearly relies on an adverse determination of the merits of petitioner’s claim. … We are not certain that Sandstrom announces a new constitutional principle; it seems to be simply an application of the principle established by Winship. See Lee v.

Essam Alhaj v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

Thus, in order to qualify for withholding of removal, the petitioner “must establish that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.” Pilica v. … Clearly, Alhaj cannot claim that he, a Muslim and native Yemeni, would “more likely than not” be persecuted upon a return to Yemen because of his race, religion, or nationality.

Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.

698 F.2d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 1983

On the right of privacy and right of publicity theories, the court held that these rights extend only to a “name or likeness,” and “Here’s Johnny” did not qualify. I. … Moreover, on the basis of these findings, we agree with the district court that the appellants have failed to establish a likelihood of confusion.

Hadix v. Johnson

143 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 1998

In step one of the Landgraf analysis, a court determines whether Congress clearly defined the temporal reach of a new law. Id. at 257-63, 280 , 114 S.Ct. at 1492-96, 1505 . … Plaintiffs’ *259 attorneys’ efforts do not qualify as post-judgment compliance monitoring and plaintiffs cannot rely upon their status as prevailing parties in the underlying litigation.

Karen S. Russo, Cross-Appellant v. The City of Cincinnati, Robert Scholl, Sandra Lemker, Richard Sizemore, Cross-Appellees (90-3465) Richard Sizemore, (90-3432)

909 F.2d 1484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 1990

ORDER 1 One of the defendants, Richard Sizemore, appeals the district court order denying him qualified immunity in this civil rights action. (Case No. 90-3432). … In this case the district court's order, to the extent it denies qualified immunity to defendant Sizemore, is immediately appealable. See Kennedy v.

United States v. James E. Campbell

168 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 1999

Not all reasoned explanations, however, qualify as limited remands. … Campbell is clearly entitled to some relief.

United States v. Harold David Jordon

530 F.2d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 4, 1976

In order to qualify a search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the officers conducting the search must have probable cause to believe that the search will turn up evidence of the offense they are … supplied the police, the positive identification of the caller, the verification of his information by officers conducting a follow-up investigation, and the detailed corroboration of the facts by the arresting officers, clearly

Dantz v. American Apple Group, LLC

123 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Regardless, Obermaier offers no support for Dantz’s claim that Lapides should extend beyond the realm of sovereign immunity. We refuse to extend Lapides beyond the sovereign immunity context. … Rizkana, 652 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio 1995), which establishes the tort of wrongful discharge in Ohio.